The Elected
Official’s Toolkit
for Jail Reentry
Jesse Jannetta
Hannah Dodd
Brian Elderbroom
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Overview of
Jail Reentry
E
very year, millions of people are released from incarceration,
and the vast majority—about 9 million individuals—exit
from local jails. Within this population, recidivism rates are high,
resulting in a damaging cycle of incarceration, release, and reincarceration. Recidivism harms local communities and places a tremendous burden on local governments trying to maintain public
safety and manage costs.
Local governments spent an estimated $109 billion on criminal
justice in 2006, a 17 percent increase over the 2003 level and 138
percent more than was spent on criminal justice functions in 1992.1
These criminal justice expenditures reflect in part the cost of failing
to reintegrate individuals returning from our nation’s prisons and
jails. Many released inmates face serious problems that contribute to
the commission of new crimes, including drug and alcohol addiction, mental illness, unemployment, and homelessness. Neglecting
these issues not only raises criminal justice costs but increases the
demand for social services, such as homeless shelter beds and emergency rooms. It also carries social costs that are difficult to quantify,
including harm to victims, strain on communities, and hardships
imposed on the families and social networks of released inmates.
Focusing on jail reentry is an opportunity for local governments to reduce recidivism and associated costs. Jail reentry initiatives encourage jails, social service providers, and other agencies
to work together to identify and address factors that increase the
risk that inmates will recidivate. Jail reentry initiatives also focus
on changing the behavior of returning inmates and promoting accountability. Such initiatives help local communities strategically
deploy limited resources to reduce harm and maximize community benefit.
Local elected officials play a vital role in jail reentry initiatives by bringing diverse stakeholders together in a shared effort
with a common mission and vision. Local governments are wellpositioned to coordinate the reentry process. Not only do they
operate law enforcement and jails, they run health and human services, housing authorities, workforce development boards, and local schools, which are key partners in any comprehensive reentry
effort. Elected officials also have standing with community service
providers and faith-based organizations that already provide many
of the social services urgently needed by those leaving jail.
Jail reentry initiatives offer numerous benefits for communities in addition to improving outcomes for individual inmates.
Jail reentry initiatives have the potential to reduce crime; affect community problems, such as homelessness; and increase
public health, safety, and well-being. Reentry initiatives can also
improve system performance by increasing coordination and
information-sharing among criminal justice agencies, community-based organizations, and other groups. This can reduce duplication of efforts and enhance the impact of existing resources.
Taxpayers ultimately reap the benefits of smaller jail populations,
reduced need for new jail facilities, and lower costs across the
criminal justice system.
Jail reentry initiatives have found support from a broad array of
stakeholders, including law enforcement, corrections, social service providers, the faith community, and victims’ groups. These
groups increasingly recognize their role in the reentry process and
are looking to elected officials for support and leadership. Jail reentry initiatives supported by elected officials bring these groups
to the table and encourage them to work together to develop effective interventions. By spearheading a cooperative reentry effort,
elected officials foster shared responsibility and ensure a common
approach to addressing this problem.
This toolkit is designed to help elected officials meet the challenges of addressing jail reentry in their communities. It provides
information and tools to improve the jail-to-community reentry
process, whether that involves implementing a jail reentry initiative for the first time or expanding an existing initiative.
It is important to note that the toolkit is not meant to be a
comprehensive guide to developing a reentry initiative. While we
have sought to include the most significant information for elected
officials who want to get involved in jail reentry, the reader should
treat the toolkit as a starting point rather than a final destination.
To this end, we have included a short directory of more extensive
and in-depth resources that address the process of implementing a
jail reentry initiative as well as specific needs of returning inmates.
Many helpful reentry resources covering a wide range of topics
are easily accessible online. We encourage readers to access these
resources for more information about the topics introduced here,
as well as for detailed guidance on the particular challenges their
communities may face.
1
U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2008. “Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts.” http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1022.
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Using the Toolkit
T
his toolkit is designed for elected officials and other policymakers looking to implement or build on a local jail
reentry initiative. It is intended for a diverse audience, including mayors and county supervisors, elected and appointed officials,
and those representing small towns and urban counties. (We
use the umbrella term “elected official” throughout the toolkit
for convenience.) Elected officials are ideally situated to lead
jail reentry initiatives. By doing so, they have the opportunity
to improve reentry outcomes, reduce victimization, and save
money.
The toolkit contains several one-page handouts providing information, tools, and resources for developing a reentry initiative.
Rather than present this information in a report or paper, we have
provided elected officials with a binder that is part briefing book
and part implementation guide.
The toolkit is divided into two sections:
Sec tion 1
Fact sheets on jail reentry and the key
components of reentry initiatives
Sec tion 2
Tools and resources for implementing or
expanding a reentry initiative
Each handout is intended to stand alone, so readers can pick
and choose the ones they need. Jurisdictions in the early stages of
developing a reentry initiative will most likely want to pay close
attention to the background materials on the left-hand side of the
folder. Those who are further along may find the resources on
the right-hand side more helpful. To get started, each handout is
briefly described below.
Section 1: Background Information
The Jail-to-Community Continuum
Describes how a jail reentry initiative should operate at each point
on the continuum from jail to community.
Stakeholders
Lists stakeholders with a vested interest in jail reentry and describes the roles they play in improving reentry outcomes.
Support for Reentry
Lists groups that have expressed their support for jail reentry initiatives, including associations of elected officials, law enforcement
officers, community-based providers, and jail administrators.
TJC Overview
Describes the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) initiative,
which provides a model for local jail reentry initiatives.
Second Chance Act
Summarizes the 2008 law designed to improve outcomes for people returning to communities from prisons and jails.
Section 2: Tools and Resources
Get Involved
Provides an overview of ways in which local elected officials can
get involved in jail reentry initiatives and the unique role that
elected officials play in improving reentry outcomes.
Profiles of Reentry Champions
Profiles local elected officials who have championed jail reentry
initiatives.
Examples of Reentry Initiatives
Presents case studies of jurisdictions that have successfully implemented jail reentry initiatives.
Overview of Jail Reentry
Local Legislation
Introduces jail reentry initiatives and explains why elected officials
should care about them.
Provides examples of legislation authorizing jail reentry initiatives
and establishing coordinating bodies.
Jails and the Jail Population
Getting Started
Highlights the unique challenges and opportunities presented by
jails and the jail population.
Describes tools for starting a reentry initiative, including guidance for
assessing local needs and building a framework for a local approach.
Talking Points
Presents talking points on jail reentry for use in interactions with
constituents, stakeholders, the media, and other policymakers.
PowerPoint Template
Provides a template for a PowerPoint presentation that can be
modified for use at legislative hearings, community events, and
other meetings.
Resources
Lists national resources on jail reentry.
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Jails and the Jail
Population
J
ails present many opportunities and challenges for inmate reintegration. Those planning jail reentry initiatives should take
into account the unique characteristics of jails, as well as the risks
and needs of the individuals who cycle through them.
Jails
Jails house a varied population. They hold individuals await-
ing arraignment, trial, or sentencing, as well as those serving short
sentences. Over 60 percent of jail inmates across the country are
in pretrial status. Jails also hold individuals who have violated probation or parole conditions, inmates from overcrowded state and
federal facilities, and inmates awaiting transfer to another facility.
The jail population is split almost evenly among inmates held for
public-order, drug, property, and violent offenses, and most inmates
are held for misdemeanors. This diverse population, with its often
unpredictable release dates, poses a planning challenge to any
reentry effort.
The jail population is growing. The jail population in the
United States has roughly doubled over the past two decades,
growing even faster than state prison populations. Several factors have contributed to this growth, including increases in the
numbers of pretrial detainees, felony offenders sentenced to jail,
and probation and parole violators. Rising jail populations have
obliged many communities to either build costly new jails or
overcrowd facilities.
Inmates have short lengths of stay. Many jail inmates are
detained for only a few hours or days, and less than one-fifth remain incarcerated for more than a month. These brief and often
unpredictable lengths of stay present a challenge to jail reentry
initiatives, which have a limited window of time to work with
inmates before release. This makes postrelease interventions in the
community particularly important for jail reentry efforts.
Jail capacity for service provision is low. While a majority
of jails provide at least some services, such as basic mental health
care, substance abuse programs, or educational programming, these
services are rarely offered to all inmates who need them. A failure
to address the risk factors that lead to incarceration will result in
recidivism for many released inmates. Partnerships with social service providers and faith-based organizations allow jails to expand
the services that they offer and facilitate continuity of care after
inmates are released.
Coordination with community services is lacking. Services in
the jail and in the community after release are rarely coordinated.
Compounding this problem, most jurisdictions do not have any
single agency responsible for providing postrelease services or supervision. Many community-based organizations have preexisting
relationships with inmates and can continue to work with inmates
after release. Collaboration and information-sharing between jails
and community organizations are essential to ensuring a smooth
transition for released inmates. Transition plans facilitate this collaboration and information-sharing across the point of release.
Jail Inmates
High incarceration and recidivism rates are related to broader social problems that many communities face. Jails often act as crisis
intervention centers for people struggling with serious difficulties,
such as addiction or mental illness. Common obstacles that put
released inmates at risk for reoffending include the following:
Substance abuse. Drugs and alcohol play a central role in incarceration and recidivism, with two-thirds of jail inmates meeting criteria for substance abuse or dependence. Substance abuse
treatment, if begun during incarceration and continued in the
community, reduces both substance use and recidivism. However,
only a small proportion of inmates struggling with substance abuse
problems receive treatment while incarcerated.
Employment. Research has shown a strong relationship between unemployment and crime, and large percentages of jail inmates report having been unemployed prior to their arrest. Low
educational attainment, limited professional skills, and a criminal
history pose significant challenges for released inmates seeking work.
Housing. Homelessness and housing instability put people
at risk for incarceration. In fact, one out of seven jail inmates is
homeless upon entering jail. Research suggests that released inmates who have stable housing are less likely to return to jail or
prison. However, released inmates must overcome many obstacles
to obtain housing, including limited financial resources, lack of
affordable housing options, public housing ineligibility, and the
stigma associated with a criminal record.
Mental health. People who are unable to get adequate treatment for mental illnesses and problems frequently wind up in jail.
A study by the Council of State Governments’ Justice Center and
Policy Research Associates found that about 17 percent of the
jail population admitted to two jails in Maryland and three in
New York met the criteria for a serious mental illness. In fact, jails
sometimes serve as a community’s largest mental health service
provider. Even a brief stay in jail can disrupt community-based
mental health treatment and put individuals at risk of missing
medication and losing benefits.
Physical health. The jail population experiences much higher
rates of chronic and infectious diseases than the general population, and over a third of jail inmates report a current medical
issue needing attention. Individuals passing through jails account
for a substantial share of the total U.S. population infected with
tuberculosis, hepatitis, and HIV/AIDS, presenting a significant
opportunity to improve public health. However, fewer than half
of all jail inmates nationally receive medical examinations when
admitted, and few of those living with infectious diseases receive
care after release.
Key Sources
Beck, Allen J. 2006. “The Importance of Successful Reentry to Jail Population Growth” (presented to the Urban Institute Jail Reentry Roundtable,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2006). http://www.urban.org/projects/reentry-roundtable/roundtable9.cfm.
James, Doris. 2004. “Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002.” NCJ 201932. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bjs.ojp.
usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1118.
James, Doris J., and Lauren E. Glaze. 2006. “Mental Health Problems of Prison
and Jail Inmates.” NCJ 213600. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/
pdf/mhppji.pdf.
Karberg, Jennifer, and Doris James. 2005. “Substance Dependence, Abuse, and
Treatment of Jail Inmates, 2002.” NCJ 209588. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
content/pub/pdf/sdatji02.pdf.
Maruschak, Laura. 2006. “Medical Problems of Jail Inmates.” NCJ 210696.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/mpji.pdf.
Sabol, William, and Todd Minton. 2009. “Jail Inmates at Midyear 2008—
Statistical Tables.” NCJ 225709. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.
cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1004.
Solomon, Amy L., Jenny Osborne, Stefan LoBuglio, Jeff Mellow, and Debbie
Mukamal. 2008. Life After Lockup: Improving Reentry from Jail to the Community. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/url.
cfm?ID=411660.
Steadman, Henry J., Fred C. Osher, Pamela Clark Robbins, Brian Case, and
Steven Samuels. 2009. “Prevalence of Serious Mental Illness among Jail
Inmates.” Psychiatric Services 60(6): 761-765.
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
The Jail-to-Community
Continuum
B
efore implementing or expanding a jail reentry initiative,
elected officials should work with the stakeholders involved
in the reentry process to identify existing resources and assess
current policies and programs. It may be helpful to consider the
various points along the jail-to-community continuum and the
responsibilities of the jail and community-based organizations at
each point. Interventions focused on changing behavior and reducing recidivism should be used at each stage to improve reentry
outcomes. Elected officials play a critical role by providing the
overall vision and guidance and by holding the partners in the
collaborative effort accountable for working together and doing
their part at each point.
Jail-Based Interventions
Jails hold a diverse population, and inmates’ stays are usually short.
Still, the period of incarceration is a valuable opportunity to begin the work of successful reentry. Jails should begin by assessing
inmates to determine who is at the highest risk to recidivate and
what issues need to be addressed to best prevent that from happening. At the level of the individual inmate, this assessment is
the basis for effective release planning. At the organizational level,
assessment information helps identify needed services and how
many people need them. It also allows the system to direct the
most intensive interventions to the highest-risk inmates.
Jails can deliver a full range of interventions, from information
on community resources for low-risk or short-term inmates, to
more intensive interventions to address substance abuse or criminal attitudes among higher-risk inmates. During their incarceration, inmates may receive needed mental and physical health services for the first time.
Community In-Reach
The incarceration period is also a critical time to introduce inmates to service systems they will need to access upon release. Jails
can facilitate this process, as well as expand the reentry services
they offer, by allowing community-based organizations to enter
the facility.This approach is known as “in-reach.” By collaborating
with the faith-based community, social service providers, employers and workforce development boards, housing and health agencies, and other organizations, jails can offer programs that they
might otherwise be unable to provide. As these community-based
organizations often work with populations prone to incarceration,
they may already have relationships with many inmates, and they
may regard in-reach as a valuable way to serve their client population. Community in-reach allows inmates to begin or maintain
these critical relationships and reduces treatment interruption. Jails
should therefore develop partnerships with community-based organizations, giving them access to inmates and sharing information
with them. Elected officials can be instrumental in encouraging jails
to support in-reach and encouraging community organizations to
take advantage of the opportunity to serve incarcerated clients.
Moment of Release
Community in-reach into the jail is especially critical immediately prior to release. In the first few days after release, returning inmates are particularly susceptible to drug use, homelessness,
going off psychotropic medication, and other problems that may
lead to reoffending. Interventions focused on bridging the time of
release and the return to the community are crucial to preventing
recidivism. Jails and community-based organizations should work
together to prepare inmates for this transition, with a focus on
keeping them engaged in changing the behaviors that led them to
jail. Elected officials can help to foster a sense of shared responsibility for inmate success to encourage this coordination between
the jail and the community.
Ideally, all inmates should leave jail with a resource guide that
explains how to access community-based services, such as drug
treatment or housing assistance, as well as with applications for
obtaining identification, medication, and government benefits, if
appropriate. For higher-risk inmates, it is important to develop
a discharge plan, laying out what they need to do to avoid reoffending. Such plans can include prearranged service appointments,
an assigned case manager, transportation from the jail, a means
of obtaining necessary medications, and prepared applications for
identification documents and the reinstatement of any government benefits.
Community-Based Interventions
Without follow-up in the community, jail-based services will have
little impact on behavior. Most inmates, however, are not legally
required to participate in community programs. (Those sentenced
to probation are the exception.) It is therefore vital that, prior
to an inmate’s release, jails and community-based organizations
arrange treatment and service appointments, offer case-management services, share information across agencies, and engage the
informal social networks that are influential in the inmate’s life,
such as family, friends, employers, and the faith community. This
increases the likelihood that released inmates will access formal
services, such as substance abuse counseling, mental health treatment, housing assistance, and job training.
Putting It All Together
The importance of increasing collaboration and coordination
between the jail and community-based organizations cannot be
overstated. Even the most well-intentioned effort, incorporating
interventions at each of these four points along the jail-to-community continuum, can fail if there is not a concerted effort to
identify shared goals, strategically allocate institutional and community-based resources, conduct joint reentry system planning,
and support and sustain collaboration. A jail reentry initiative can
serve as the nexus for this collaboration, allowing jails, communitybased organizations, and other stakeholders to develop partnerships and share information. Elected officials play a key role in
building and sustaining this shared effort by bringing stakeholders
to the table and monitoring their progress. A great deal of work is
required to achieve this high level of collaboration, but the benefits that jail reentry initiatives provide to participating stakeholders,
inmates and their families, and the community can be substantial
and far-reaching.
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Stakeholders
A
wide range of groups have a stake in jail reentry. Crime and
the use of public resources by individuals who fail to successfully transition from jail affect the entire public. Reentry affects
various components of the criminal justice system, including law
enforcement, jails, probation, and parole. It also affects the families
and communities to which released inmates return and the inmates themselves. Elected officials should be aware of the impact
of jail reentry on these groups, as well as how the reentry process
affects their community as a whole. Some of the stakeholders with
the greatest investments in jail reentry are listed below.
Law Enforcement
Law enforcement’s interest in protecting public safety gives it a
clear stake in jail reentry initiatives that prevent reoffending. Law
enforcement personnel also have a particular interest in interventions to stabilize the relatively small number of habitual offenders
who cycle in and out of jail many times each year. This chronic
offending is often the result of public order offenses arising from
such problems as homelessness, substance abuse, and mental illness.
Law enforcement agencies spend disproportionate resources arresting these habitual offenders—resources that would be better
directed to more serious crimes.
support the long-term interests of victims, preventing new crimes
and reducing the likelihood of revictimization.
The General Public
The high rates of recidivism among released inmates make us all
stakeholders in the jail reentry process. Along with improving
public safety, a reentry initiative can lead to healthier neighborhoods by addressing homelessness, unemployment, substance abuse,
and infectious diseases. Curbing recidivism can also lower criminal
justice costs. At the same time, there may be concerns within the
general public about the jail reentry initiative. While individuals
have always returned from jail to the community, a jail reentry
effort may bring this dynamic to the public’s attention for the first
time and cause anxiety. Education on the public safety and resource
issues involved, coupled with extensive outreach to the community,
can help allay this anxiety. A joint education and outreach approach
that includes many stakeholders, particularly from law enforcement,
may be the most effective way to gain the public’s support.
Employers
Most community-based service providers, including faith-based
organizations, already serve many individuals returning from jail,
simply because many in the jail population need the services they
provide. Jail reentry initiatives help these organizations work more
effectively with jail-involved clients by improving collaboration,
resource allocation, and information-sharing among providers and
criminal justice agencies.
Employers are a critical stakeholder in any reentry initiative. Because many jail inmates are only incarcerated for a few days, or
even a few hours, some can return to previously held jobs. Many
others, however, need assistance in finding a job or learning vocational skills. Ensuring that released inmates have stable employment is an important way to keep them from returning to jail. Reentry efforts should therefore involve employers, some of whom
may already employ formerly incarcerated individuals or even
current inmates under work-release programs. Elected officials can
be instrumental in garnering employer support and establishing
incentives, such as tax breaks, for hiring former inmates.
Victims
The Courts
Victims of crime, and the groups that represent them, are an important constituency in the reentry process. Most jail inmates are
charged with misdemeanors, such as possession of drugs or public
misconduct, but others are charged with more serious offenses
involving another person. Victims understand firsthand the importance of protecting the public from future offending. In some
instances, such as domestic violence situations, there is a great risk
that a past victim could be victimized again. By focusing on inmate behavior change and risk reduction, jail reentry efforts also
As jail inmates are in various stages of the criminal justice process,
the courts have tremendous interest and sway in what happens
with the jail population. Pretrial service programs operated by the
courts have contact with the jail population early in the process.
These programs can conduct assessments and play an important
role in release planning. Many judges are interested in utilizing
any potentially effective behavior-change intervention, and their
sentencing decisions can determine what in-jail programming individuals can complete, and even what programming is mandatory.
Community Service Providers
Probation and Parole
Many individuals admitted to jail are probation or parole violators.
Some will again be under supervision upon release.These supervision agencies have valuable information to share about many jail
inmates, and they can play a key role in brokering—and requiring—services and treatment upon release.
Released Inmates and Their Families
Many people end up in jail repeatedly because they struggle with
serious and frequently co-occurring problems, such as substance
abuse, housing instability, joblessness, and mental illness. After release, these individuals face significant obstacles, and as a result,
many will return to jail within a short time.This cycle causes serious hardship to their families. The absence of a spouse, parent, or
adult caretaker disrupts families and creates financial difficulties.
Children of incarcerated parents are particularly vulnerable. Providing formerly incarcerated men and women with the services
they need helps to break this cycle of recidivism and allows them
to live more stable and productive lives. Families are key supports
for inmates’ eventual success and are perhaps the greatest beneficiaries of that success.
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Support for
Reentry
E
lected officials who get involved in jail reentry are likely
to find broad support for reentry initiatives in their communities. According to a 2006 Zogby poll conducted for the
National Council on Crime and Delinquency,1 the U.S. voting
public is in favor of providing reentry services to nonviolent
offenders by almost an eight to one margin. In fact, 70 percent
support providing services both while inmates are incarcerated
and after their release.
Reflecting this public sentiment, a wide variety of local, state,
and national organizations have voiced support for efforts to improve reentry outcomes. More than 200 organizations supported
the passage of the Second Chance Act, a 2008 law designed to
improve outcomes for people returning to communities from
prisons and jails.This included diverse groups, such as the National
Alliance for the Mentally Ill, American Conservative Union, Children’s Defense Fund, Christian Coalition, NAACP, and American
Bar Association—organizations that represent many different interests and come from both sides of the political aisle.What unifies
them is an understanding that reentry provides a major opportunity to increase public safety and reduce criminal justice costs.
Reentry initiatives have also found extensive support among
the various stakeholders directly involved in the jail reentry process. These groups favor greater collaboration on the reentry issue
and are ready and willing to work with elected officials to improve
reentry outcomes. Key groups that have been particularly strong
advocates of reentry efforts are profiled below.
Elected Officials
Several groups representing state and local elected officials have
been active in reentry issues, including the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National
League of Cities, the Council of State Governments, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors Association. For example, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has established the Ex-Offender Reentry Task Force to highlight strategies
for improving reentry outcomes. In February 2008, the task force
(in partnership with the nonprofit organization Public/Private
Ventures) convened the Mayor’s Summit on Reentry and Employment to discuss the impact of reentry on cities and to share
information on effective reentry programs across the country. At
the federal level, members of Congress gave broad bipartisan support to the Second Chance Act.
Community-Based Organizations
Community-based organizations, which provide such services as
substance abuse counseling and mental health treatment, are critical to the success of any reentry initiative. These groups tend to
be strong supporters of reentry efforts and have often taken the
lead in local reentry initiatives. For this reason, national organizations such as Goodwill Industries, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, and Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, along with
many local service providers, strongly supported passage of the
Second Chance Act. A number of faith-based groups also supported the law, including the Salvation Army, Lutheran Services of
America, and Catholic Charities USA. Across the United States,
the faith community provides both crucial reentry services and
informal social support to people returning from jails. Faith-based
organizations are key stakeholders in jail reentry and are often active participants in reentry initiatives.
Jails
The American Jail Association, the professional association representing jail administrators, recently passed a resolution stating
that “re-entry programs are in the best interest of society because
they help prepare offenders for community life, help reduce future criminal behavior, remove the barriers that make it difficult
for offenders to re-enter their communities and develop necessary
community support.”2 The American Correctional Association,
which represents both jail and prison professionals, has adopted
a similar position on reentry efforts, and both organizations fully
supported passage of the Second Chance Act.
Probation and Parole
The American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), an
organization representing probation officers and administrators, actively supports reentry initiatives. In the words of Carl
Wicklund, the executive director of the APPA, “Jail reentry is
an often overlooked process—one that requires the attention of
local leadership because of its complexity and the large number
of stakeholders involved in the process. Jail reentry initiatives
that facilitate a smooth transition for people leaving jail can reduce the need for costly interventions later in the process and
allow probation officers to focus on the individuals who pose the
greatest risk to public safety.”3
Law Enforcement
The Federal Government
Several law enforcement associations have supported reentry legislation, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP), the National Sheriffs’ Association, the Fraternal Order of
Police, and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). IACP
(2007) published a comprehensive resource guide, “Building an
Offender Reentry Program: A Guide for Law Enforcement,”
which outlines ways for law enforcement to participate in reentry
initiatives.4 PERF has also sought to expand the involvement of
law enforcement in reentry initiatives. In 2008, PERF partnered
with the Council of State Governments Justice Center to develop
a report, “Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry
Strategy,”5 and selected four law enforcement agencies to serve as
sites for implementing the report’s recommendations.
The federal government is actively engaged in reentry efforts that
include a variety of grants to organizations, states, and local governments. Most prominently, the 2008 Second Chance Act authorized funding for grants to help local and state governments
and Indian tribes develop comprehensive reentry initiatives, as
well as for nonprofit organizations to provide mentoring services
to released inmates. Funding for Second Chance Act programs
increased from $25 million in fiscal year 2009 to $100 million in
fiscal year 2010.
Prosecutors and Defenders
In 2005, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), a
professional association for prosecutors, adopted a resolution calling
for an increased role for prosecutors in reentry issues. The resolution states that “America’s prosecutors should, where practicable, be
participants in addressing this issue in an effort to reduce recidivism
and ensure the safety of victims and the community.”6 The resolution emphasizes providing programs for inmates both during and
after incarceration. The American Bar Association (ABA) also favors greater attorney involvement in promoting successful reentry.
Through its Reentry and Collateral Consequences Committee, the
ABA provides reentry education and resources for its members.
Krisberg, Barry, and Susan Marchionna. 2006. “Attitudes of U.S. Voters toward
Prisoner Rehabilitation and Reentry Policies.” Focus:Views from the National Council
on Crime and Delinquency. http://nccd-crc.issuelab. org/research/listing/attitudes_of_
us_voters_toward_prisoner_rehabilitation_and_reentry_policies_focus.
2 Adopted May 3, 2008, by the AJA Board of Directors in Sacramento, CA: http://
www.aja.org/resolutions.aspx#re_entry_of_offenders.
3 Personal communication with the authors, August 5, 2009.
4 International Association of Chiefs of Police. 2007. “Building an Offender Reentry Program: A Guide for Law Enforcement.” http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/
pdf/Reentry_LE.pdf.
5 Swarzfeld, Matt, Deirdre Mead Weiss, Martha Plotkin, and Laura Draper. 2008.
“Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy.” Prepared by the
Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Police Executive Research Forum for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of
Justice. NewYork: Council of State Governments Justice Center. http://reentrypolicy.
org/jc_publications/LE_toolkit_ final/LE_Reentry_Strategy.pdf.
6 National District Attorneys Association. 2005. “Policy Positions on Prisoner Reentry Issues.” http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/policy_position_prisoner_reentry_july_
17_05.pdf.
1
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
TJC Overview
T
he Transition from Jail to Community initiative (TJC) was
launched in 2007 through a cooperative agreement between
the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and the Urban Institute to develop and implement an effective jail-to-community
transition model. Rather than a discrete reentry program, TJC is
a comprehensive systems approach for improving public safety
and reintegration.TJC solicits partnerships among criminal justice
agencies, community-based organizations, and other stakeholders.
Under the TJC model, these agencies use a collaborative, datadriven approach to provide services and supervision to the inmates who need them most.
At the system level, the TJC model focuses on
77 Leadership, vision, and organizational culture to set
expectations and empower stakeholders and staff;
77 Collaborative structure and joint ownership by both
jail and community stakeholders to develop and share responsibility for joint outcomes of interest;
77 Data-driven understanding of the local issue, including characteristics of the returning population and local
barriers and assets;
77 Targeted intervention strategies to assess individuals,
plan for release, and provide services and training in jail and
in the community; and
77 Self-evaluation and sustainability to guide and improve
the effort.
At the level of targeted interventions for individuals, the TJC
model includes
77 Screening and assessment to quickly determine an inmate’s
risks and needs and guide transition planning and service
provision;
77 Transition case plan development to prepare individuals
for release and reintegration; and
77 Tailored transition interventions that begin in jail and
continue after release. Interventions should
●● Enlist multiple service sectors;
●● Involve community in-reach to build relationships before release;
●● Use low-cost interventions, such as reentry resource
guides;
●● Involve informal support networks; and
●● Enhance the role that supervision can play, when applicable.
The TJC Sites
Two TJC learning sites—Denver, Colorado, and Douglas County,
Kansas—began implementing the model in September 2008. Under the guidance of NIC and the Urban Institute, these sites have
built a collaborative structure among criminal justice agencies and
community organizations in which jail reentry is a central, and
shared, focus. Both sites are also in the process of implementing a
The TJC Model
System Elements
Leadership, vision,
and organizational
culture
+
Collaborative
structure and
joint ownership
+
Data-driven
understanding of
local reentry
+
Targeted
intervention
strategies
+
Self-evaluation
and
sustainability
Intervention Elements
COMMUNITY
Transition Plan
Targeted Interventions
Information & referrals
Case management
Formal services
Informal support systems
Supervision
Improved Outcomes
JAIL
Screening &
Assessment
screening and assessment system to strategically allocate intervention resources to the highest-risk and highest-need individuals.
These sites have used TJC participation to add greater focus
and direction to their preexisting reentry efforts. The need for a
reentry effort in Douglas County became especially clear when
the county’s relatively new jail, built in 1999 to deal with a growing number of inmates, became full after less than 10 years. Realizing that continuing to build new jails was neither financially
feasible nor sustainable, Douglas County decided to pursue a systems change effort focused on improving reentry outcomes and
reducing recidivism.
In both Denver and Douglas County, elected officials have
played a key role in the TJC implementation process.
77 Mayor John Hickenlooper of Denver, concerned about
recidivism and jail overcrowding, created a Crime Prevention and Control Commission (CPCC), which brings together individuals from criminal justice, service provider,
and other agencies to address these issues. The CPCC has
taken a lead role in Denver’s TJC work. As Mayor Hickenlooper said, “Technical assistance from the National Institute
of Corrections and Urban Institute on the Transition from
Jail to Community initiative will enhance our comprehensive model and maximize cost-effective reintegration of our
citizens into our community.”1
77 Charles Jones, Douglas County Commissioner, was
interested in both increasing individual reentry success and
reducing criminal justice costs at the time of TJC selection.
“In addition to advancing an enlightened manner of dealing with jail inmates and increasing the likelihood of their
healthy return to the community, the reentry initiative holds
our best hope for reducing the spiraling costs associated
with incarceration and recidivism.”2
The TJC initiative expanded in September 2009 with the selection of four additional sites: Orange County, California; Kent
County, Michigan; La Crosse County, Wisconsin; and Davidson
County, Tennessee. These four sites have mirrored the progress
made in Denver and Douglas County by implementing screening
and assessment processes, expanding evidence-based interventions
for the jail population, enhancing collaboration between correctional agencies and community service providers, and developing
orgaizational structures to carry forth reentry efforts over time.
More Information and Resources
For in-depth information about all six sites and about the elements
and structure of TJC, please visit the TJC web site at http://
www.jailtransition.com. The TJC Implementation Toolkit, a
free, interactive web resource for starting a TJC initiative, is also
available at http://www.jailtransition.com/Toolkit.
1
2
Personal communication, September 17, 2008.
Personal communication, September 12, 2008.
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Second Chance Act
I
n April 2008, President George W. Bush signed Public Law 110119, more commonly known as the Second Chance Act. This
landmark legislation, which has both symbolic and practical value,
authorizes the federal government to make substantial investments
in reentry initiatives at the local level. Federal grant funding for reentry efforts is appropriated by Congress and administered by the
Departments of Justice and Labor. In fiscal year 2009, the Second
Chance Act funded reentry demonstration grants to state, local,
and tribal governments for the development of comprehensive
reentry initiatives. A separate grant program provided funding to
nonprofit organizations to provide mentoring. Those grant programs have been supplemented in fiscal year 2010 with new grant
programs in the areas of reentry courts, correctional education,
technology careers training, and substance abuse programming.
The Second Chance Act is intended to1
77 break the cycle of criminal recidivism, increase public safety,
and help states, local units of government, and Indian
tribes better address the growing population of criminal
offenders who return to their communities and commit
new crimes;
77 rebuild ties between offenders and their families, while the
offenders are incarcerated, and after reentry into the community, to promote stable families and communities;
77 encourage the development and support of, and expand
the availability of, evidence-based programs that enhance
public safety and reduce recidivism, such as substance abuse
treatment, alternatives to incarceration, and comprehensive
reentry services;
77 protect the public and promote law-abiding conduct by
providing necessary services to offenders, while the offenders are incarcerated and after reentry into the community, in
a manner that does not confer luxuries or privileges upon
such offenders;
77 assist offenders reentering the community from incarceration to establish a self-sustaining and law-abiding life by
providing sufficient transitional services for as short of a period as practicable; and
77 provide offenders in prisons, jails, or juvenile facilities with
educational, literacy, vocational, and job placement services
to facilitate reentry into the community.
For fiscal year 2009, Congress appropriated $25 million for
Second Chance Act programs, including $15 million for state and
local reentry demonstration projects. In fiscal year 2010, the ap-
propriation amount increased to $100 million. Future appropriations will provide an excellent opportunity for local jurisdictions
to expand existing reentry initiatives or develop new and innovative programs.
Before jurisdictions can apply for Second Chance Act funding, they must meet several criteria. Elected officials in interested
jurisdictions should be aware of these criteria and work with the
appropriate stakeholders to ensure that the community is wellpositioned to secure a grant. The Second Chance Act criteria are
key components of any effective reentry initiative, and adhereing
to them will ensure a stronger and more successful effort.
Among the criteria for Second Chance Act reentry demonstration grant funding are the following:
77 Reentry Task Force: Grant applicants are required to have
a reentry task force that will be responsible for coordinating
the reentry initiative. This task force must be composed of
local leaders (such as elected officials) and representatives
from relevant agencies, such as jails, community-based organizations, law enforcement, probation and parole, health and
human services, housing agencies, and workforce development boards.
77 Involvement of Jails and Community Corrections:
Applicants are expected to provide a thorough accounting
of the role of corrections in the reentry initiative to ensure the support and buy-in of key stakeholders, such as jail
administrators, sheriffs, pretrial services, and probation and
parole.
77 Strategic Plan: Applicants must submit a comprehensive
strategic plan that includes annual and five-year performance goals. This plan should provide performance measures, an implementation schedule, plans for continuing the
initiative once funding has ended, and a description of each
organization’s role in the initiative.
77 Performance Measures: Applicants must detail how the
outcomes of their initiative will be monitored. Elected
officials should guide the development of the measures
they will use to hold the reentry initiative accountable for
performance.
77 Regulatory Barriers: Applicants are required to submit a
plan for analyzing the statutory and regulatory barriers that
face ex-offenders. Examples include the loss of government
benefits, including Medicaid eligibility; restrictions against
enrollment in affordable housing, education, or employment
programs; and voter disenfranchisement.
Although these are the major criteria that applicants must
meet, the law includes other requirements and suggestions for
those seeking a grant. The National Reentry Resource Center
(NRRC), established by the Second Chance Act to provide information and support services to reentry efforts nationwide, can
help jurisdictions meet these guidelines and prepare successful
applications. Launched in October 2009, the NRRC provides
information, tools, and resources on its web site, http://www.
nationalreentryresourcecenter.org. The NRRC is administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of
Justice, and is a project of the Council of State Governments
Justice Center, with key project partners the Urban Institute, the
American Probation and Parole Association, and the Association
of State Corrections Administrators.
1
U.S. Congress. 2008. Public Law 110-199. 110th Congress, Apr. 8.
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Get Involved
J
ail reentry initiatives need the support of local elected officials to be successful. Despite broad interest in reentry
initiatives among the agencies and organizations that serve the
jail population, these groups often work with this population in
isolation from one another. Many communities have not established processes for cross-agency information-sharing, continuity of services between the jail and community, or performance
measurement.
The role of elected officials is to provide vision and leadership,
harness community interest, promote sustainable collaborations,
and provide ongoing support for effective reentry programs and
practices. The active involvement of elected officials lends credibility to reentry initiatives, and they are in a unique position to
convene the necessary stakeholders to launch a reentry effort.
Once such an effort is under way, elected officials can sustain
partnerships, make decisions for the group, hold stakeholders accountable for accomplishing the goals of the initiative, and spread
the word about the importance of the problem—and, ultimately,
about the success of the initiative.
Below are some of the ways in which elected officials can
strengthen a reentry initiative and ensure its continued success.
Leadership and Vision
With so many stakeholders involved in the jail reentry process,
building a consensus on goals, strategies, and resource allocation is
an ongoing challenge. Leadership from elected officials is critical
in developing an elevating vision, mission, and direction across a
range of groups. Elected officials should establish objectives, build
the necessary buy-in among stakeholders, and set a vision for
change that motivates others.
77 Articulate a vision of how the jail reentry initiative will benefit the community.
77 Develop a mission statement.
77 Engage the community and become a public voice for reentry initiatives.
ration, coordination, and a sense of shared responsibility among
these organizations is key to the success of any reentry initiative.
Elected officials have a variety of tools at their disposal to support
the development of necessary partnerships. They are well-positioned
to bring stakeholders together and facilitate collaboration among
diverse groups.
77 Establish a local reentry coordinating council or similar governing body. If one already exists, get actively involved.
77 Emphasize collective ownership over jail reentry among
participating organizations.
77 Encourage stakeholders to communicate, cooperate, share
resources, and jointly resolve problems.
Ordinances, Policies, and Legislation
Perhaps the most obvious way for elected officials to get involved in a jail reentry initiative is through the legislative process.
In fact, many jurisdictions have established reentry coordinating
councils through authorizing legislation (see the Local Legislation page for an example). Legislation can also be used to reduce
barriers to successful transition. A recent survey of the mayors of
79 cities found that 36 percent of the cities have made changes
in ordinances or policies to improve the odds that ex-offenders
can successfully transition back to the community.1 Among these
cities, 77 percent made changes related to employment, and 58
percent made changes related to housing accessibility. Elected
officials also hold the power of the purse and should use it to
support programs that work.
77 Develop legislation to formalize a reentry coordinating
council.
77 Assess barriers to successful reentry that can be addressed
through legislation or executive action, such as employer
discrimination against those with a criminal record or restrictions on where former inmates can reside.
77 Provide fiscal incentives and reward successful reentry
programs.
Collaboration
Oversight and Accountability
Successful jail reentry initiatives require participation from local
jails, community-based organizations, law enforcement, courts,
probation, and government service providers. Building collabo-
Given both the promise and the complexity of jail reentry initiatives, evaluation and performance measurement should be a top
priority to determine whether the effort is working. As part of this
process, elected officials should require reentry programs to collect and report data on released inmates’ outcomes. They should
provide ongoing oversight to ensure that resources are being used
efficiently and that ineffective strategies or programs are modified
or terminated.
77 Ensure that agencies continuously work to sustain, evaluate,
improve, and expand their reentry efforts.
77 Develop performance measures related to recidivism and
hold agencies accountable for meeting specific goals.
77 Establish performance-based contracts for community providers that work with the jail population.
1
U.S. Conference of Mayors. 2009. “Status of Ex-Offender Reentry Efforts in Cities:
A 79-City Survey.” Washington, DC: City Policy Associates. http://usmayors.org/
pressreleases/uploads/REENTRYREPORT09.pdf.
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Profiles of
Reentry Champions
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York City
During Michael Bloomberg’s tenure as mayor, New York City
has made enormous strides in addressing the needs of people
returning from jail. Since he was first elected in 2001, Mayor
Bloomberg has provided the vision, leadership, and monetary support necessary develop an extensive range of reentry initiatives
and programs.
One such effort is the New York City Discharge Planning
Collaboration, a network of roughly 40 local government agencies and community-based nonprofits. It began in 2003, when
Commissioners Martin Horn of the Department of Correction
(DOC) and Linda Gibbs of the Department of Homeless Services discovered that a large
“All too often, [released proportion of individuals who frequent the jail
inmates] come back to
were homeless. Recogniza world with limited
ing their common ground,
the two commissioners
opportunities . . . We
have a responsibility to embarked on a project to
effect system-wide change
. . . help more of them
by increasing coordination between the criminal
take full advantage
justice and social service
of the second chance
spheres. In 2004, Mayor
they’ve been given.” 1
Bloomberg signed legislation codifying the collaboration’s efforts into law and mandating that the DOC take several
steps to improve reentry, including data collection, informationsharing, and provision of services to inmates. According to collaboration members, Mayor Bloomberg fostered an organizational
culture conducive to a collaborative approach, encouraging city
agencies to “think beyond [their] four walls” and providing a “vision from the top” that was key to the effort’s success.2
Another reentry effort that has benefited from Mayor Bloomberg’s support is the Rikers Island Discharge Enhancement Program (RIDE). Initiated in 2003, RIDE facilitates a seamless transition from jail, providing inmates with prerelease discharge planning, transportation to housing or social services on the day of
release, and continuing postrelease case management. As Mayor
Bloomberg describes RIDE, “instead of simply opening the cell
doors and letting people fend for themselves, we work with them
beforehand to assess their needs and create a plan for where they
will go and what they will do after they’re discharged. If they don’t
have a plan, then they don’t have a chance.”
Along with supporting and encouraging these efforts, Mayor
Bloomberg has publicly championed the importance of reentry. In
2008, as part of the keynote address at the Mayors Summit on Reentry and Employment, Mayor Bloomberg explained that focusing on reentry “is much more than simply a public safety imperative. It’s also an opportunity to strike a blow against poverty,” noting that those who return from incarceration are “the same people
who depend on our Human Resources Administration for food
stamps and rental subsidies… [and] who visit our public hospitals
and clinics for drug treatment and emergency care.” Finally, he
emphasized that reentry efforts remain critically important even
in difficult economic times: “Right now, all of us are facing tough
budgets—but we can’t let that be an excuse for failing in our responsibility.We can’t let a life of crime become the default option.”
Commissioner Lisa Naito,
Multnomah County, Oregon
Lisa Naito served on the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners from 1998 until 2008. During her 10 years on the Board,
Commissioner Naito was actively involved in improving the jail
reentry process in Multnomah County. In her ca“We know that linking
pacity as an elected official,
supportive services,
Commissioner Naito assumed a leadership role on
such as housing, jobs,
the issue, brought together
addiction treatment,
a diverse group of stakehealth and mental
holders, championed reentry initiatives in the comhealth programs, goes a
munity, and worked to pass
long way in preventing
local legislation that would
recidivism. With these
improve reentry outcomes.
kinds of supports,
While on the Board of
Commissioners, Commispeople are far less
sioner Naito also served as
likely to end up in our
the chair of the National
County jail again.” 3
Association of Counties’
Justice and Public Safety
Committee as well as the chair of the Multnomah County Local Public Safety Coordinating Council. By serving in these roles,
Commissioner Naito established herself as a local and national
leader on criminal justice reform issues, including jail reentry. As a
result, Commissioner Naito was among a select group of lawmak-
ers and advocates invited to the White House in April 2008 to
attend President George W. Bush’s signing of the Second Chance
Act.
In fall 2008, Commissioner Naito convened an informal work
group to discuss strategies for improving reentry outcomes in Multnomah County.The work group included the Multnomah County
sheriff and other representatives from the Sheriff ’s Office, a representative from the U.S. Department of Justice, and other key stakeholders. Under Commissioner Naito’s leadership, the work group
issued a report4 outlining several recommendations for improved
reentry in Multnomah County, including the following:
77 Establish a reentry council to oversee and coordinate reentry services.
77 Articulate a mission statement on jail reentry to reflect
Multnomah County’s commitment to promote positive
change.
77 Adopt a validated risk and needs assessment tool to ensure that reentry planning begins at jail booking.
77 Bring community programming into the jails to link
inmates to programs prior to release.
77 Increase the connections between the jail and community
programs.
77 Plan for inmate transition to the community to prevent
recidivism.
77 Establish a prerelease work release center to increase
stable employment opportunities prior to returning to the
community.
77 Institute a community-based one-stop reentry center to
support ex-offenders.
77 Evaluate the outcomes of the reentry programs by using
performance measures and quality assurance evaluations.
In December 2008, less than two months after the work group
released its final report, the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners established the Council on Successful Reentry from Jail
to Community to implement the work group’s recommendations.
1
All quotes from Mayor Bloomberg given here are from his 2008 keynote address
at the Mayors Summit on Reentry and Employment, http://www.ppv.org/ppv/
initiative.asp?section_id=0&initiative_id=44.
2
Montero, Gabriel. 2007. “Mapping the Universe of Reentry: The New York City
Discharge Planning Collaboration.” New York: New York City Department of Correction. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doc/downloads/pdf/discharge_planning.pdf.
3 Naito, Lisa, et al. 2008. “Transitioning from Jail to Community: Improving Reentry Outcomes in Multnomah County, a Report.” http://web.multco.us/sites/
default/files/documents/transitioningfromjailtocommunityareport10-30-08.pdf.
4 Ibid.
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Examples of
Reentry Initiatives
Hampden County, Massachusetts
In Hampden County, three-quarters of inmates released from the
jail return to inner-city neighborhoods, and half are released with
no community supervi“Sometimes I think
sion. Since the 1990s, the
Hampden County Sheriff ’s
that because we at the
Department has worked to
Hampden County
address these individuals’
Sheriff’s Department
needs through a comprehensive reentry initiative
believe in inmates
answering the bell each and a nationally replicated
health program. The Shermorning for productive iff ’s Department and its
activities, people confuse partners have implemented
a variety of efforts that adus with being soft.
vance the county’s vision
Quite the opposite—
of reentry as a continuum
allowing inmates to
from jail to the community. Services are provided
hang around all day
in the jail, concentrated
with nothing to do is
at the moment of release,
my idea of being soft.”1 continued after release, and
~ Hampden County Sheriff
coordinated with existing
Michael Ashe
community services.
Key elements of the Hampden County initiative include the
following:
77 Partnerships and collaboration. The Sheriff ’s Department partners with other criminal justice agencies and over
200 service providers in its reentry efforts.
77 Assessment of needs. Every inmate undergoes a risk and
needs assessment that informs programming, case management, classification, and release planning.
77 Mandatory in-jail programming and services. While
incarcerated, inmates are required to attend certain programs depending upon their identified risk level and needs.
The jail also provides inmates with mentors to support their
rehabilitation.
77 Community in-reach. Community organizations provide programming and case management in the jail, and inmates meet with service providers, including an education
counselor and case workers, while incarcerated.
77 Service and transition planning. Individualized treatment plans guide services both in the jail and after re-
lease. Inmates leave jail with a release plan that contains
referrals, contact and appointment information, and other
information.
77 Post-release services in the community. After release
from jail, inmates can continue to receive services through
the After Incarceration Support System (AISS) program.
Released inmates have access to case management, support
groups, drop-in hours with counselors, and follow-up with
mentors.
77 Lower-security options. In 1986, Hampden County established the nation’s first day reporting center, which allows individuals to continue serving their sentences while
living at home. Jail inmates can work toward lower security
classifications, including day reporting, by participating in
programs and demonstrating an interest in addressing their
needs. This process saves jail bed days and connects inmates
to community providers.
77 Self-evaluation. Since 1998, Hampden County’s reentry
initiative has been monitoring its progress by tracking recidivism rates and other key indicators among sentenced inmates.
For example, since making program participation mandatory
in 2001, Hampden County has seen the percentage of offenders released from lower security increase from 38 percent
to 66 percent in 2008.2 The one-year reincarceration rate declined from 31 percent in 2001 to 23 percent in 2007.3
While reentry services originally focused on sentenced inmates
only, the Sheriff ’s Department decided to provide these services to
the full jail population in 2009. Sheriff Michael Ashe, Jr., who was
determined to keep reentry efforts from falling victim to a 10 percent cut in the department’s budget, chose instead to expand the
program by using department resources more strategically. Sheriff
Ashe recognized that, along with helping inmates, this expansion
would save costs by reducing the length of time inmates remain
in the facility. A pilot test of the program expansion, in fact, found
that unsentenced, pretrial inmates were released an average of 17
days earlier due to participation in programs that target their individual needs (and thus prepare them for lower security levels, and
release, sooner than business-as-usual).
A part of Hampden County’s widely recognized reentry initiative involves its nationally replicated model for improving public
health. This model, which has evolved into Community Oriented
Correctional Health Services (COCHS), pairs inmates diagnosed
with chronic illnesses with a case manager and a physician, who
are dually-based in the jail and a community health center.
Together, they treat and educate inmates in the jail and set up appointments for them upon release. A 2004 evaluation found that
the program significantly improved released inmates’ physical and
mental health outcomes and that continuing with the same health
provider after release from jail increased the use of health care
services in the community.4
An important element of any reentry initiative is being open to
trying new ideas, tracking the effectiveness of new programs, and
retaining those that work. The Hampden County initiative has
implemented several innovative measures, including
77 Mentors in the jail and community, many of whom are volunteers and ex-offenders;
77 A portfolio of documents (including identification, health
card, and résumé) provided to all inmates;
77 A requirement that inmates spend 40 hours per week in
programs and work assignments;
77 Job placement by Sheriff ’s Department job developers; and
77 Special reentry and intervention services for two groups: the
highest-risk offenders and those with co-occurring mental
health and substance abuse problems.
Denver, Colorado
Jail reentry in Denver is a collaborative effort, relying on strong
partnerships among criminal justice agencies, local government,
and community-based organizations. Denver, which operates two
separate jail facilities, has undertaken a variety of initiatives to
tackle recidivism and related problems among its jail population.
These efforts have been spearheaded by the Crime Prevention
and Control Commission (CPCC), in close collaboration with
the Denver Sheriff Department. The CPCC is a body formed in
2005 to reduce crime and recidivism and to make better use of
jail resources.2 Funded by the City and County of Denver and established under Mayor John Hickenlooper’s leadership, the CPCC
brings together 32 representatives and top officials from criminal
justice agencies, government, and the community. CPCC initiatives include re-visioning and implementation of Denver’s Drug
Court, implementation of a comprehensive gang prevention and
reduction model, jail-based mental health transition units, and efforts to identify and address causes of racial and gender disparity
in the adult and juvenile justice systems in Denver.
The CPCC acts as the central hub of, and provides leadership
and support for, Denver’s reentry process. Since 2006, the CPCC’s
Community Reentry Committee has worked to establish a reentry process that includes both pre- and postrelease components.
Within the Denver County Jail, the Life Skills Program offers a
range of classes and case management services for eligible inmates.
The program offers cognitive-behavioral classes and courses in
job readiness, healthy lifestyles, treatment readiness, parenting, and
other areas. In addition to
“Our Crime
the Life Skills program, the
Prevention and Control
jail offers classes in GED
Commission has made
preparation, anger management, domestic viogreat strides to reduce
lence, and substance abuse
overcrowding in our
to all inmates.
jails by implementing
As part of the transition process, staff at Denalternatives to
ver’s Community Reentry
incarceration, expediting
Project (CRP) work with
case processing, and
jail-based Life Skills case
targeting mental health
managers to facilitate the
classes and build relationand reentry efforts.”1
ships with those soon to be
~ Denver Mayor John
released to the community.
Hickenlooper
Participants in the Life
Skills program are encouraged to receive continued services after
release at the CRP, which opened in 2007 and provides case management, job readiness, housing assistance, referrals, and other services to individuals transitioning from jail. Funded by the CPCC,
the CRP relies on its staff and community-based organizations to
provide the many services it offers. Jail and CRP staff share client information and work closely together to ensure a seamless
reentry process.
The CPCC was critical to Denver’s selection in 2008 as a
learning site for the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) initiative. The CPCC’s collaborative structure provided a strong base
for the initiative, which seeks to improve the jail transition process
through a systems change approach.TJC has helped to shape Denver’s reentry strategy by emphasizing joint ownership of the issue
by the jail and community, better matching of inmates to services,
effective use of data, and evidence-based programming. In 2009,
Denver began implementation of a system to prioritize those inmates most in need of help, as identified by screening and assessment. Denver has also worked to evaluate the content of both
in-jail and CRP programming to determine how to better integrate evidence-based practices and make programs more consistent
between the two locations.
1 Excerpt from his National Correctional Officers Week Address, http://www.
hcsdmass.org/excerptnatcorr.htm.
2 Personal communication with Martha Lyman, director of research, Hampden
County Sheriff ’s Department, February 5, 2010.
3 Ibid.
4 Hammett, Theodore M., Cheryl Roberts, Sofia Kennedy, and William Rhodes.
2004. “Evaluation of the Hampden County Public Health Model of Correctional
Care.” Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
5 Personal communication, September 17, 2008.
6 For more information about the CPCC, please visit http://www.denvergov.org/
crimeprevention.
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Local Legislation
New York, New York
In December 2004, the New York City Council enacted legislation
codifying into law the efforts of the city’s Discharge Planning Collaboration, a jail reentry working body consisting of representatives
from government agencies, service providers, and other organizations.1 The law specifies that the city’s Department of Correction
must track repeat offenders who are homeless; collect information
on inmates’ housing, employment, and substance abuse needs and
provide that information to social service providers; make applications for government benefits available to inmates and assist certain
inmates in preparing the applications; and provide a report to the
mayor and the Council on the department’s discharge planning efforts and on rates of recidivism among those who have received
discharge planning services. The last item, in particular, allows these
elected officials to provide oversight of the department’s efforts and
determine whether those efforts are effective at reducing recidivism.
The following is an excerpt from Local Law No. 54:2
A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the
city of New York, in relation to discharge planning
services.
Be it enacted by the Council as follows:
Section 1. Declaration of legislative findings and intent. . . . The
Council finds that assisting inmates in accessing social services
and government benefits will improve their ability to re-integrate into the community.The Council further finds that codifying into law recent initiatives of city agencies will ensure the
long-term continuation and expansion of such efforts. Accordingly, the Council declares that it is reasonable and necessary to
mandate the provision of certain discharge planning services.
2. Title 9 of the administrative code of the city of New York is
amended by adding new sections 9-127, 9-128 and 9-129 to
read as follows:
§ 9-127 Housing, employment and sobriety needs. a.The
department of correction and the department of homeless services shall develop a process for identifying individuals who repeatedly are admitted to city correctional institutions and who,
in addition, either immediately before their admission to or
after their release from such institutions, are housed in shelter
provided by the department of homeless services.
b. The department of correction shall collect, from any sentenced inmate who will serve, after sentencing, ten days or
more in any city correctional institution, information relating to such inmate’s housing, employment and sobriety needs.
The department of correction shall, with the consent of such
inmate, provide such information to any social service organization that is providing discharge planning services to such
inmate under contract with the department of correction.
For the purposes of this section and sections 9-128 and 9-129 of
this title, “discharge planning” shall mean the creation of a plan
for post-release services and assistance with access to community-based resources and government benefits designed to promote an inmate’s successful reintegration into the community.
§ 9-128 Applications for government benefits. a. The department of correction shall make applications for government
benefits available to inmates by providing such applications in
areas accessible to inmates in city correctional institutions. b.
The department of correction shall provide assistance with the
preparation of applications for government benefits and identification to sentenced inmates who will serve, after sentencing, thirty days or more in any city correctional institution and
who receive discharge planning services from the department
of correction or any social services organization under contract
with the department of correction, and, in its discretion, to any
other inmate who may benefit from such assistance.
§ 9-129 Reporting. The commissioner of correction shall
submit a report to the mayor and the council by October first
of each year regarding implementation of sections 9-127 and
9-128 of this title and other discharge planning efforts, and, beginning October first, two thousand eight and annually thereafter, regarding recidivism among inmates receiving discharge
planning services from the department of correction or any
social services organization under contract with the department of correction.
Miami-Dade County, Florida
In November 2005, the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners created a Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee to develop recommendations for ways to improve jail reentry outcomes. This committee was made up of representatives from the
criminal justice, social services, workforce, and education communities, as well as elected officials. In April 2009, in accordance
with the committee’s recommendations, the Board of County
Commissioners adopted legislation creating the Miami-Dade
County Reentry Council. This legislation outlines the role of
the committee and mandates that its membership include certain
office-holders in criminal justice, government, and community
organizations, as well as two former inmates. An excerpt from
the legislation follows.3
Resolution creating the Miami-Dade
County Reentry Council
WHEREAS, the Second Chance Act of 2007, signed into
law on April 11, 2008, is a federal law designed to ensure safe
and successful return of prisoners to the community; and
WHEREAS, the Second Chance Act provides grants to
states and local governments that may be used to promote the
safe and successful reintegration of prisoners into the community, for programs such as employment services, substance abuse
treatment, housing, family programming, mentoring, victims
services, and methods to improve release and revocation decisions using risk-assessment tools; and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned recommendations in the
Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee’s Final Report are perfectly
in line with the Second Chance Act in its mission to facilitate
the successful transition of formerly incarcerated persons back
into the community; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 675-08 directed the Mayor to
apply for, receive and expend any and all grants made available under the Second Chance Act of 2007 for local reentry programs of the type recommended in the Blue Ribbon
Advisory Committee’s Final Report, and by Resolution No.
1064-08 directed the County’s federal lobbying team to assist
the Mayor in identifying and applying for such grants; and
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Justice
(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs requires local government
seeking grant funding from its Second Chance Act to establish
a local reentry entity comprised of relevant agencies, service
providers, nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations,
foundations, and other key stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs requires such local reentry entities to plan, develop, and estab-
lish a local re-entry strategy and a five-year reentry strategic
plan
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Section 1. The Board herby creates the Miami-Dade Reentry Council to provide a forum for ongoing planning and
coordination of local reentry services and to prepare a plan for
implementing the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee Final Report, dated March 28, 2008, as well
as the aforementioned requirements of the Second Chance
Act of 2007 and United States Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs. The plan shall include a five-year reentry
strategic component, which will be updated as appropriate, and
as required by the United States Department of Justice. The
plan shall provide for evidence-based methodology and outcome measures for evaluating the efficacy and impact of the
programs. The plan shall be submitted to the Board within less
than a year from the effective date of this resolution.
Recommendations of the Miami-Dade County
Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee
• Measure outcomes in pilot programs, and expand services based on demonstrated needs and effectiveness
• Convene academic partners to conduct local reentry
research, including data collection and analysis
• Develop a plan for securing local reentry demonstration
grants through the Second Chance Act
• Remove barriers that restrict the employment of former inmates in county government, and reduce housing
barriers
• Adopt standardized processes for assessment, case management, and information sharing
• Engage community-based service providers prior to
release; develop individual release treatment plans; develop interagency agreements to share medical information; and increase funding for critical support services,
including mental health
1 See the profile of Mayor Michael Bloomberg on the Profiles of Reentry Champions page for more information.
2 Full text of Local Law 54, Introductory Number 310-A, can be accessed at
http://legistar.council.nyc.gov, by searching for “310” in year 2004.
3 The full text of this bill, Resolution Number 321-09, is available by searching
for “reentry council” at http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/searchleg.asp.
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Getting Started
O
nce the decision has been made to launch a collaborative jail reentry initiative, attention should turn to
building a solid foundation for the effort. Bringing disparate
stakeholders together, garnering support for a new initiative,
assigning roles and responsibilities, and making sure that everyone follows through on their commitments are difficult tasks,
no matter how small the undertaking. Listed below are a number of steps1 that elected officials can take to begin the work
of getting started.
Encourage Collaboration among
Key Stakeholders
Elected officials have unique convening power to bring together
diverse stakeholders around the issue of jail reentry.
77 Recognize the complexity of existing systems: Effective reentry requires contributions from distinct and overlapping systems, including criminal justice, mental health,
substance abuse, and workforce development. The vantage
point of elected officials may give them a greater understanding of the systems involved than the other stakeholders,
allowing them to facilitate mutual understanding and broad
approaches to problem-solving.
77 Identify key stakeholders and engage them in a discussion regarding reentry: Identifying, let alone including, all the relevant local stakeholders in a jail reentry initiative is very challenging. Elected officials, with their broad
and deep knowledge of the constituent elements of the
communities they represent, are uniquely qualified to identify and engage these key stakeholders. This list will contain,
at a minimum, the sheriff, jail administrator, chief of police,
probation officials, government social service agencies (state
and local), community-based organizations, victim advocates, and other elected officials.
77 Define the scope of the problem: The issues related to
jail reentry can be daunting to the point of paralyzing an
effort attempting to address them all immediately. An important role of leadership in establishing the initiative may
be to focus the effort on a manageable piece of the problem,
either in terms of issue area (e.g., housing, mental health,
employment) or target population (e.g., frequent jail users,
female inmates).
Develop a Knowledge Base
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to jail reentry, and reentry
initiatives must be designed to address the problems and resources
that exist locally. Developing a common knowledge base enhances
the effectiveness of jail reentry efforts by increasing the likelihood
that they will focus on the most pressing issues and respond to
them based on a thorough understanding of the underlying dynamics involved.
A useful tool for developing this knowledge base is the SARA
(Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment) model.
77 Scanning: Scan the local jurisdiction to identify the problem on which efforts will be focused.
77 Analysis: Analyze the data to identify the underlying
cause of the reentry problem being addressed; discover who,
what, when, where, why, and how to narrow the focus of the
initiative.
77 Response: Develop a response that is clearly linked to the
results of the analysis.
77 Assessment: Once a response is developed and implemented, evaluate it to determine whether and the extent to
which it achieves its goals and was implemented according
to plan.
Analysis is the main focus of developing a common knowledge
base. The analysis component of the SARA model as applied to
reentry includes:
77 Understanding who is entering and being released from the
jail;
77 Identifying what state and local policies influence and govern reentry;
77 Identifying where released inmates are returning and understanding the characteristics and service capacities of those
communities;
77 Understanding why released inmates are re-offending; and
77 Understanding how inmates are prepared for release and
transition to the community.
With this information in hand, the jail reentry effort will be
ready to devise the specific strategies and activities that will reduce recidivism and improve community reintegration for the jail
population.
Choose a Framework for the Effort
Successful jail reentry is a complex endeavor composed of many
interrelated parts. Devising or adapting a comprehensive framework for the effort situates all the parts within a single “big picture” that will help each involved partner understand how their
contributions fit within the whole. An example of such a comprehensive framework is the Transition from Jail to Community
(TJC) model, which consists of five system-level elements:
77 Leadership, vision, and organizational culture
77 Collaborative structure and joint ownership
77 Data-driven understanding of the local issue
77 Targeted intervention strategies
77 Self-evaluation and sustainability
Detailed information on the TJC model is available at the TJC
project web site, http://www.jailtransition.com.
1
The first two subsections are adapted from Reentry Policy Council. 2005. “Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of
Prisoners to the Community.” Washington, DC: Council of State Governments.
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Talking Points
A
prepared set of talking points will be helpful in explaining
a complex jail reentry undertaking to concerned citizens,
the media, and various stakeholder groups. Several talking points
covering the basics of jail reentry are listed here.
Elected officials should adapt this list to their community’s
needs and modify it based on their target audience. These talking points should also be enhanced with local data on reentry
and the jail population. Once a reentry initiative is under way,
talking points will expand to include measures of the initiative’s
effectiveness, such as recidivism rates, jail population figures, and
correctional spending. Anecdotal evidence can also illustrate an
initiative’s successes. This could include examples of released inmates who have benefited from reentry programming or employers who have incorporated inmates into their workforce development plans. Elected officials may also want to develop additional
talking points describing the current strengths of and gaps in the
local jail reentry process.
77 Jail reentry affects everyone in the community.
Along with released inmates and their families, jail reentry directly affects government and community-based
service providers, employers, law enforcement, probation
and parole, and other groups. Ultimately, improving the
jail reentry process is in the best interest of everyone in
the community.
77 Jail reentry initiatives increase public safety by reducing recidivism. Nearly three-quarters of jail inmates
have previously been sentenced to either probation or incarceration. Jail reentry initiatives can reduce recidivism
rates by matching the right services to the right people and
by increasing information-sharing across the agencies that
interact with the jail population.
77 Jail reentry initiatives make strategic use of scarce
resources. Increasing collaboration among jails, community-based service providers, and other groups requires little
in the way of new funding and holds great potential for
improving outcomes. Under a jail reentry initiative, jails and
social service providers collaborate, share information, and
avoid duplication of effort to ensure that inmates have access
to the services they need.
77 Many community problems intersect with the jail.
People who suffer from mental illnesses, substance abuse and
dependence, unemployment, homelessness, and other problems often wind up in jail. In fact, jails are the largest mental
health providers in many communities. The jail population
77
77
77
77
77
also experiences much higher rates of chronic and infectious diseases than the general population.
By improving outcomes for released inmates, we can
create a stronger and healthier community. People
leaving the jail are members of our community. They are
our fathers and sons, sisters and neighbors. Most were arrested for misdemeanor offenses and were not incarcerated
for very long, and many pass through the jail without being
convicted of a crime. Reentry initiatives help these people
access the services and treatment that they need, thereby
strengthening families and making the community a better
place to live.
The availability of services in jails is limited. While
in the jail, most inmates do not receive the treatment they
need or the services that will increase their chances of success in the community. For example, less than one-fifth of
convicted inmates who struggle with substance abuse problems receive treatment while incarcerated.1 By expanding
programming, assessing inmates’ risks and needs, identifying
appropriate interventions, and developing reentry plans, jails
can improve inmates’ reentry outcomes.
Community-based services should be offered inside
the jail. Jails can greatly extend their service capacity by
providing opportunities for community-based organizations
to bring services into the jail. This approach can also reduce
interruptions in treatment for inmates who were undergoing care in the community prior to their incarceration.
Jails and community-based organizations should
work together as a network of providers. Jails and service providers interact with many of the same individuals,
and they have a common interest in the success and rehabilitation of their clients. Given that jail-based services are
far more effective at reducing recidivism when they are coordinated with services in the community after release, it is
important for jails and community providers to collaborate
on reentry efforts and share information on clients.
Even modest reductions in recidivism will save taxpayers money. An Urban Institute analysis2 of the costs
and benefits of providing jail reentry services suggests that
reentry programs need only reduce recidivism rates by 2
percent to offset the cost of providing programming. Further reductions in recidivism beyond that level represent the
potential “profit” to the public from the investment in jail
reentry programming.
77 The federal government is making substantial investments in jail reentry initiatives. With the passage of
the Second Chance Act, the government has signaled that it
plans to make a long-term investment in reentry. For fiscal
year 2009, Congress appropriated $25 million for grants to
local reentry programs, and $100 million was appropriated
in fiscal year 2010.
77 A comprehensive jail reentry model has been developed to help communities build a reentry initiative.
The Transition from Jail to Community initiative focuses on
systems change and on developing collaborative relation-
ships between the agencies and organizations involved in
the reentry process. This model offers communities a comprehensive strategy for improving reentry outcomes and increasing public safety.
1
Karberg, Jennifer, and Doris James. 2005. “Substance Dependence, Abuse, and
Treatment of Jail Inmates, 2002.” NCJ 209588. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/
sdatji02.pdf.
2
Roman, John, and Aaron Chalfin. 2006. “Does It Pay to Invest in Reentry Programs
for Jail Inmates?” Paper presented at the Jail Reentry Roundtable, June 27–28,
2006, Washington, DC. http://www.urban.org/projects/reentry-roundtable/upload/
roman_chalfin.pdf.
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
PowerPoint
Template
A
s elected officials become more involved in jail reentry
work, stakeholders will look to them for leadership and vision. This may involve chairing a reentry coordinating body, and
it will almost certainly involve becoming a champion for the effort. Regardless of whether elected officials play a formal leadership role in the initiative, they will have many opportunities to
make presentations on local efforts to improve reentry outcomes.
Whether these presentations are given before the local governing
body, the state legislature, stakeholder groups, or national research
and advocacy organizations, they offer a chance to educate others,
generate support, and promote the initiative.
For these presentations, elected officials may find it helpful to
have a standard set of talking points and a consistent method for
delivering the information. PowerPoint presentations are an es-
pecially effective tool for condensing complex information and
making sure that key messages get across to one’s audience. Using
a standard PowerPoint presentation, tailored to jurisdiction priorities, can also save time and effort.
Included in this toolkit is a PowerPoint template that elected officials can use as a starting point for their reentry presentations. This template covers the main issues related to jail
reentry, and it may be useful for those who need to assemble
a presentation quickly. The template leaves space for elected
officials to craft their own presentation using local data and information. Brackets are used to show where local information
should be inserted.
An electronic version of this template is available from http://
www.jailtransition.com.
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Resources
T
his toolkit serves as a starting point for building or expanding a jail reentry initiative. However, it is by no means an
exhaustive guide to all elements of the complex jail reentry issue.
Listed below are several key web sites and publications that provide further information for creating and sustaining successful jail
reentry initiatives.
Web Sites
National Reentry Resource Center
http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org
The National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC) offers an
extensive collection of reentry information, tools, and resources. Established by the Second Chance Act and launched in fall
2009, the NRRC is an ongoing project of the Council of State
Governments (CSG) Justice Center and several partner organizations, with support from the U.S. Department of Justice’s
Bureau of Justice Assistance. The NRRC provides training,
technical assistance, and education for reentry efforts across
the country and has a subcommittee on local government
co-chaired by CSG and the National Association of Counties
(NACo).
Transition from Jail to Community Initiative
http://www.jailtransition.com
This web site provides information on the Transition from Jail to
Community (TJC) initiative, a joint effort of the National Institute of Corrections and the Urban Institute. The web site features
information on the TJC model and how it has been implemented
in six sites, the TJC implementation toolkit, and links to other jail
reentry resources.
Jail Reentry Roundtable
http://www.urban.org/projects/reentry-roundtable/
roundtable9.cfm
The Jail Reentry Roundtable, an undertaking of the Urban Institute, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and the Montgomery
County (Maryland) Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, was held in 2006 with support from the Bureau of Justice
Assistance. Several papers, presentations, and reports from the
Roundtable Initiative are available from this web site.
Documents
TJC Implementation Toolkit
Guides readers through the implementation of a comprehensive jail
reentry initiative based on the Transition from Jail to Community
model, which emphasizes systems change, interagency collaboration,
and effective allocation of services according to individual needs.
(The Urban Institute, 2009, http://www.jailtransition.com/Toolkit)
Life After Lockup:
Improving Reentry from Jail to the Community
Presents a picture of jail reentry in America, examining opportunities, challenges, strategies, and examples of successful initiatives.
(The Urban Institute, 2008, http://www.urban.org/publications/
411660.html)
Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council:
Charting the Safe and Successful Return of
Prisoners to the Community
Provides extensive and detailed information on the reentry transition process and effective social service provision, and offers
numerous suggestions for planning and implementing a comprehensive reentry initiative. (Council of State Governments Justice
Center, 2005, http://www.reentrypolicy.org/Report/toc)
Reentry Resource Guide
Offers an extensive list of reentry resources, organized into subtopics. (Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2009, http://
www.reentrypolicy. org/resources/jc_resources)
Reentry Partnerships: A Guide for States and
Faith-Based and Community Organizations
Reviews strategies for developing reentry partnerships between criminal justice and community agencies and for making the best use of
limited resources in a reentry effort. (Council of State Governments
Justice Center, 2008, http://www.reentrypolicy.org/jc_ publications/
reentry_partnerships_guide/Reentry_Partnership_Web.pdf)
Partnering with Jails to Improve Reentry:
A Guidebook for Community-Based Organizations
Introduces CBOs to the importance of jail reentry work, guides
them in developing and sustaining a partnership with the jail,
and provides useful resources. (The Urban Institute, 2010, http://
www.urban.org/publications/412211.html)
Reentry for Safer Communities: Effective County
Practices in Jail to Community Transition Planning
for Offenders with Mental Health and Substance
Abuse Disorders
Briefly discusses the components of jail reentry planning for inmates with co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders and describes several examples of successful programs focusing on this population. (National Association of Counties, 2008,
http://www.ojp. usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/Reentry_Safer_Comm.pdf)
Decriminalizing Mental Illness:
Background and Recommendations
Building an Offender Reentry Program:
A Guide for Law Enforcement
Offers an overview of the ways in which law enforcement can be
involved in a reentry effort. (International Association of Chiefs of
Police, 2007, http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=
ocK1XtwlyIA%3d&tabid=253)
The Jail Administrator’s Toolkit for Reentry
Covers each step of developing a reentry initiative, including examples of useful tools and effective strategies. (The Urban Institute, 2008, http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411661)
Status of Ex-Offender Reentry Efforts in Cities:
A 79-City Survey
Outlines strategies for integrating mental health services with the
justice system and for diverting mentally ill offenders away from
jail. (National Alliance on Mental Illness, 2008, http://www.nami.
org/Template.cfm?Section=Issue_Spotlights&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=67126)
Presents results of a survey on how mayors in the United States
are responding to the needs of inmates returning to their communities and describes successful reentry initiatives that cities have
pursued. (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2009, http://usmayors.org/
pressreleases/uploads/reentryreport09.pdf)
Getting out with Nowhere to Go:
The Case for Re-Entry Supportive Housing
A Best Practice Approach to Community Re-entry
from Jails for Inmates with Co-occurring Disorders:
The APIC Model
Provides a brief introduction to the issue of housing in reentry
efforts and summarizes a few successful reentry housing programs
that have been implemented in cities across the country. (Corporation for Supportive Housing, 2008, http://www.csh.org/index.
cfm?fuseaction=document.showDocumentList&parentID=53)
Outlines the APIC (Assess, Plan, Identify, Coordinate) model for
improving the reentry of jail inmates suffering from co-occurring
disorders. (National GAINS Center, 2002, http://www.gainscenter.
samhsa.gov/pdfs/reentry/apic.pdf)
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
About the Authors
Jesse Jannetta is a research associate in the Urban Institute’s
Justice Policy Center. He directs projects relating to community
supervision and reentry from both prison and jail. Before coming
to the Urban Institute, Mr. Jannetta was a research specialist at
the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections at the University
of California, Irvine, where his work included projects on GPS
monitoring of sex offender parolees, policies on parole discharge
and violation response, and assessment of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s programs according to the
principles of evidence-based design. He holds a master’s degree in
public policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University.
Hannah Dodd is a research assistant with the Urban Institute’s
Justice Policy Center. She works primarily on research projects
involving reentry from jail and prison, human trafficking, and
tribal youth in the federal system. Before joining the Urban
Institute, Hannah interned at the American Institutes for Research
as a junior fellow in the University of Maryland’s Joint Program in
Survey Methodology. She holds a bachelor’s degree in sociology
and psychology from the College of William and Mary.
Brian Elderbroom is a senior associate on the Pew Center on
the States’s sentencing and corrections initiative, the Public Safety
Performance Project. Prior to joining Pew, Brian was a research
assistant in the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, where his
research focused primarily on prisoner reentry and community
supervision. Before joining the Urban Institute, Brian worked
on a wide range of criminal justice issues as associate director of
the North Carolina-based Common Sense Foundation and in
positions with the Center for Death Penalty Litigation and North
Carolina Coalition for a Moratorium. Brian holds a master’s degree
in public administration from the George Washington University’s
Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration.
The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Acknowledgments
T
he authors wish to thank Amy Solomon for her invaluable
input and assistance in developing this toolkit. Julie Samuels,
Mitchell Herkis, and Maeghan Gilmore provided very helpful
comments that greatly improved the toolkit. Finally, we thank our
funder, the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs’
Bureau of Justice Assistance. Its leadership in the area of jail reentry
is moving the field forward by providing guidance and support to
jurisdictions across the country.
This report was prepared by grant no. 2005-RE-CX-K148,
awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice
Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs,
which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National
Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, Community Capacity
Development Office, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing,
Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of
view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the
U.S. Department of Justice.
The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research
and educational organization that examines the social, economic,
and governance problems facing the nation. The views expressed
are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban
Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
2100 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: 202.833.7200
E-mail: paffairs@ui.urban.org
http://www.urban.org